Michael Sauer

[QUOTE=KesselLooksLikeRadar;56851269]If you said that, I would not assume that you only watched one game he played in. That was my point. To assert that he only saw one game is the same as saying he saw all 19 of his games.

Then you'd be wrong. Glad to know you put your faith and trust into random people on the internet. I'm also a Nigerian Prince.

Why would that stand to reason? He didn't specify when he saw those games. It could have just as easily been that he saw more games the 2nd half of the season, when it became more apparent that the Rangers were a contender. Besides, the average ice time places hism as a 2nd pairing guy on the Rangers, yet people keep trying to say they used him on the 3rd pair. You can dismiss my opinion, but you can't dismiss the ice time.

Perhaps because he said he saw 15 games that he played in. Staal was hurt in that timeframe in which Sauer played, meaning that Sauer received top 4 minutes because of the injury, which would mean his assertion of Sauer being a bottom pairing d-man was, in fact, correct, taking into account the ice-time you are so fond of.

Then you'd be wrong. Glad to know you put your faith and trust into random people on the internet. I'm also a Nigerian Prince.

You asserted that despite him watching 30-40 Ranger games, he might have only watched 1 game with Sauer in it. The guy you replied to stated he likewise might have watched all of his 19 games. He is right. You are wrong. Nice try though.

You asserted that despite him watching 30-40 Ranger games, he might have only watched 1 game with Sauer in it. The guy you replied to stated he likewise might have watched all of his 19 games. He is right. You are wrong. Nice try though.

The funny thing is though, nobody will ever know the truth now will they?

Perhaps because he said he saw 15 games that he played in. Staal was hurt in that timeframe in which Sauer played, meaning that Sauer received top 4 minutes because of the injury, which would mean his assertion of Sauer being a bottom pairing d-man was, in fact, correct, taking into account the ice-time you are so fond of.

He didn't say that until much later. If Sauer stayed healthy knowing Tortarella it was more likely that Sauer would have stayed 2nd pair given his right handedness when Staal came back and Del Zotto would have dropped to 3rd pair. Furhermore Sauer played on the 2nd pairing the entire season before.

You are correct. Good work. I would fancy a non Ranger fan is less biased than a Ranger fans toward a Ranger player though, no?

Sometimes. Of course there is a bitter caps fan biased against everything Rangers. Without talking about Sauer's ability and simply talking about which pair he played on you would think Ranger fans who watched most of if not all of his games over the last year would be taken at their word. But apparently guys that saw 15 games are taken more seriously.

He didn't say that until much later. If Sauer stayed healthy knowing Tortarella it was more likely that Sauer would have stayed 2nd pair given his right handedness when Staal came back and Del Zotto would have dropped to 3rd pair. Furhermore Sauer played on the 2nd pairing the entire season before.

He actually said that before I surmised that he saw nearly all of the games; but nice try. And you can't deal in a world of hypotheticals. You can't say "Torts would have", because there is no way of knowing. Furthermore, that was the season prior to. I'm sure you can say that as a Rangers fan, Kreider was better last year than the the year before that. Progression and regression are real factors. You need to take that into account before saying as an almost matter of fact that a coach would have done something when, in reality, no one knows. Viro stated his opinion that he looked like a bottom pairing d-man, and I have addressed this enough times now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Championship

Less biased how? People carry biases against teams and it clouds their judgement. I wouldn't trust anybody's "scouting reports" on this site.